Has Trump lowered the standards for experience long-term?

[President Johnson]

As the first president with no experience in public office or the military, has Trump lowered standards for experience in presidential campaign on a long term basis? Quite frankly, he doesn't even have real business experience like people like Mike Bloomberg, Mark Cuban, Howard Schulz or even Andrew Yang have. We're talking about Tucker Carlson and Don Jr. as potential candidates, who, regardless what you think of them, literally have zero credentials to be president.

Before 2016, there were almost no serious candidates for president with this lack of experience, let alone nominees of major parties. Ike was the last one who never held a political office, but he was a General who run a part of occupied Germany. Wendell Willkie was a businessman candidate, but had things to do with government and met foreign leaders. I'm not generally saying someone from the world of business or Military/Intel Community wouldn't be competent enough to serve as president, though political experience is definitely an asset.

[Hope For A New Era]

I don't think it was just him, I think it was 2016 as a whole. The last few years have seen a wave of people with little or no experience being elected to high positions.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I remember that 2018 included presidential speculations about Oprah or even The Rock.

[brucejoel99]

It's possible to have outsider politicians (e.g., Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Al Franken) who toe-the-line with regards to political & social norms, but I don't think the thing that most defines Trump is his lack of experience so much as it is his reactionary toxicity: Trump is a symptom of a widespread backlash against the societal & economic changes that've happened at lightening speed over the past several decades in that Trump was just a logical extension of the GOP's paleoconservative wing, which never had the clout of the big-business deregulators or the neoconservatives but was always present (& not only was he a better showman than Pat Buchanan, but running after the first Black President & against the potential first female President provided him with the right timing to capitalize on still-widespread levels of racism & misogyny within the electorate); that backlash won't last forever, but it's not over yet.

I think the bigger question is "has Trump significantly shifted the norms for what we expect of our leaders?" On the left, the answer is pretty clearly no, but we could see another Trump if the character of the GOP's base doesn't change. They voted for Trump simply because they liked what he said: they didn't care about his experience, his skills, his background, etc. Even if Trump supporters eventually accept that they made a mistake, they might make the same mistake again because they'll always be more susceptible to reactionary toxicity.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Coincidently the only other president who had no elected or military experience was Herbert Hoover

[Calthrina950]

Coincidently the only other president who had no elected or military experience was Herbert Hoover

True, although Hoover was Secretary of Commerce throughout most of the 1920s, under Harding and Coolidge.

[Del Tachi]

The limiting factor for presidential candidates has always been money.  Now with Citizens United and cable news, you don't need institutional networks to partisan fundraisers in order to compete for money/media.  This affects how candidates justify/run their campaigns, and I suspect is a big reason why huge primary fields are becoming the norm.   

Trump couldn't have "lowered the standard" by himself.  A lot of these changes have been occurring gradually for quite some time. 

[Mister Mets]

I don't think so.

If he's seen as an unsuccessful President, which is likely to be the case, lack of experience will be seen as a problem.

It's also worth noting that we've had a stretch of historically inexperienced Presidents.

Bill Clinton was a man in his early 40s elected President on the strength of his tenure as a small-state Governor.

George W Bush served as Governor in a state where the legislature had the power. And his main accomplishments were due to his dad being a major political figure.

Barack Obama served less than a full term as a part-time Senator (his first two years were devoted to his book; his last two were devoted to his presidential campaign.(

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Buchanan had a much more impressive resume than Lincoln.

[Mister Mets]

javascript:void(0);
Buchanan had a much more impressive resume than Lincoln.

As did Andrew Johnson, the only President to previously hold pretty much every possible elected office (alderman, mayor, state house of representatives, state senator, US House of Representatives, Governor, Senator, Vice President) before he became President.

It doesn't make Trump a good President, though.

[Benjamin Frank]

Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for 2 years before getting elected President, and spent a good deal of those two years running for President.

He had no political experience, elected or otherwise before that.

[Stuart98]

Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for 2 years before getting elected President, and spent a good deal of those two years running for President.

He had no political experience, elected or otherwise before that.

And it showed.

[Benjamin Frank]

Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for 2 years before getting elected President, and spent a good deal of those two years running for President.

He had no political experience, elected or otherwise before that.

And it showed.

Yes, I think he's very overrated.

[Samof94]

Cynthia Nixon ran for Governor of New York and got nowhere. About the only thing I remember about her campaign was a heartwarming moment when her son came out as transgender.

[Person Man]

Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for 2 years before getting elected President, and spent a good deal of those two years running for President.

He had no political experience, elected or otherwise before that.

And it showed.

Yes, I think he's very overrated.

He did a lot of great things, but historians generally think he was a bad president. Especially because he was a segregationist. In a way, he was an interesting mix of a Trumpy candidate and a typical moderate Democrat.

Of course a Democrat couldn't run like that today but I could see a future Democrat, if Biden loses, running on a lot of the stuff that someone like Biden would run but also co-opting some Trumpy things on immigration (especially if Biden's loss is blamed on Stockholm Syndrome Hispanics). 

I'm calling it. If there is a Clinton-like triangulation in the future, it will be a Wilsonian figure.

[Benjamin Frank]

Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for 2 years before getting elected President, and spent a good deal of those two years running for President.

He had no political experience, elected or otherwise before that.

And it showed.

Yes, I think he's very overrated.

He did a lot of great things, but historians generally think he was a bad president. Especially because he was a segregationist. In a way, he was an interesting mix of a Trumpy candidate and a typical moderate Democrat.

Of course a Democrat couldn't run like that today but I could see a future Democrat, if Biden loses, running on a lot of the stuff that someone like Biden would run but also co-opting some Trumpy things on immigration (especially if Biden's loss is blamed on Stockholm Syndrome Hispanics).  

I'm calling it. If there is a Clinton-like triangulation in the future, it will be a Wilsonian figure.

Wilson was regarded as one of the best Presidents by historians for a long time and he's still highly regarded by most.

I think the main problems with him fit into 3 areas:

1.His active segregation, as you mentioned.

2.His highly principled but impractical handling of the post war via his 14 points.  At least as principled as it went, since his racism also led him to not care about colonies in Africa.  Wilson did promote the Philippines moving to independence from the United States, though.

He also exercised patience in order to keep the United States out of war with Mexico.  So, he does have a mixed record here.

3.His impractical handling of the post war also led him to not help out with the single most important issue: reparations.  It's possible he didn't understand the significance, but, it wasn't unknown: John Maynard Keynes quit the conferences due to it.

France wanted to receive large payments from Germany because they were heavily in debt, not just because they wanted to punish Germany.  Who did they owe this money to? The United States.

Wilson was all for high minded ideals as long as it was for others. He had no interest in helping to ease tensions if it meant the United States had to sacrifice a little.

[Person Man]

Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for 2 years before getting elected President, and spent a good deal of those two years running for President.

He had no political experience, elected or otherwise before that.

And it showed.

Yes, I think he's very overrated.

He did a lot of great things, but historians generally think he was a bad president. Especially because he was a segregationist. In a way, he was an interesting mix of a Trumpy candidate and a typical moderate Democrat.

Of course a Democrat couldn't run like that today but I could see a future Democrat, if Biden loses, running on a lot of the stuff that someone like Biden would run but also co-opting some Trumpy things on immigration (especially if Biden's loss is blamed on Stockholm Syndrome Hispanics).  

I'm calling it. If there is a Clinton-like triangulation in the future, it will be a Wilsonian figure.

Wilson was regarded as one of the best Presidents by historians for a long time and he's still highly regarded by most.

I think the main problems with him fit into 3 areas:

1.His active segregation, as you mentioned.

2.His highly principled but impractical handling of the post war via his 14 points.  At least as principled as it went, since his racism also led him to not care about colonies in Africa.  Wilson did promote the Philippines moving to independence from the United States, though.

He also exercised patience in order to keep the United States out of war with Mexico.  So, he does have a mixed record here.

3.His impractical handling of the post war also led him to not help out with the single most important issue: reparations.  It's possible he didn't understand the significance, but, it wasn't unknown: John Maynard Keynes quit the conferences due to it.

France wanted to receive large payments from Germany because they were heavily in debt, not just because they wanted to punish Germany.  Who did they owe this money to? The United States.

Wilson was all for high minded ideals as long as it was for others. He had no interest in helping to ease tensions if it meant the United States had to sacrifice a little.

Like I said, I can see him as a model for a Democrat to win if Trump triggers a realignment.

[Benjamin Frank]

Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for 2 years before getting elected President, and spent a good deal of those two years running for President.

He had no political experience, elected or otherwise before that.

And it showed.

Yes, I think he's very overrated.

He did a lot of great things, but historians generally think he was a bad president. Especially because he was a segregationist. In a way, he was an interesting mix of a Trumpy candidate and a typical moderate Democrat.

Of course a Democrat couldn't run like that today but I could see a future Democrat, if Biden loses, running on a lot of the stuff that someone like Biden would run but also co-opting some Trumpy things on immigration (especially if Biden's loss is blamed on Stockholm Syndrome Hispanics).  

I'm calling it. If there is a Clinton-like triangulation in the future, it will be a Wilsonian figure.

Wilson was regarded as one of the best Presidents by historians for a long time and he's still highly regarded by most.

I think the main problems with him fit into 3 areas:

1.His active segregation, as you mentioned.

2.His highly principled but impractical handling of the post war via his 14 points.  At least as principled as it went, since his racism also led him to not care about colonies in Africa.  Wilson did promote the Philippines moving to independence from the United States, though.

He also exercised patience in order to keep the United States out of war with Mexico.  So, he does have a mixed record here.

3.His impractical handling of the post war also led him to not help out with the single most important issue: reparations.  It's possible he didn't understand the significance, but, it wasn't unknown: John Maynard Keynes quit the conferences due to it.

France wanted to receive large payments from Germany because they were heavily in debt, not just because they wanted to punish Germany.  Who did they owe this money to? The United States.

Wilson was all for high minded ideals as long as it was for others. He had no interest in helping to ease tensions if it meant the United States had to sacrifice a little.

Like I said, I can see him as a model for a Democrat to win if Trump triggers a realignment.

From a policy perspective, I think the realignment is already occurring: Democrats becoming the party of the suburbs: pro business professionals who want limited and fairly cheap 'good government' and are liberal on social issues.  There are already a number of heavily suburban states where Democrats basically govern that way (Washington, Delaware, Virginia...)


I don't think any altering to this realignment would have anything to do with policy, I think it would be more to do with attitude, with the Democrats sloughing off their 'civility wing' of voters and looking for simple and dishonest talking points that their supporters can mindlessly regurgitate on social media, essentially what the Republicans have been doing for most of 40 years now, though obviously the technology has changed from direct mail to talk radio to online media.